Rails and trails once again on county’s front burner
The Mountain Democrat’s No. 10 story of 2011 came roaring back with renewed vigor at Tuesday’s El Dorado County Board of Supervisors meeting. Two agenda items dealing with rails and trails pushed the board discussion and public testimony to nearly 8 p.m.
A license agreement to authorize an excursion train project for five years on the Sacramento-Placerville Transportation Corridor was defeated “as proposed” by the supervisors. The agreement would have included the Joint Powers Authority that “owns” the corridor and the Placerville & Sacramento Valley Railroad — a non-profit excursion rail organization.
The license agreement proposal was recommended by a majority of the county’s Parks and Recreation Commission. Bob Smart is the commissioner for supervisorial District 3 appointed by Supervisor Jack Sweeney. He has often represented a middle ground between the rails and trails factions and is generally a proponent of compromise. He got some credit for the commission’s endorsement of the license agreement.
On Wednesday, Smart also spoke by phone to the Mountain Democrat and noted that ”the commission said to the two sides, ‘You get credit for working together’ (on behalf of El Dorado County, not Folsom or Sacramento County, where the excursion train groups are located).”
Supervisor Ron Briggs recommended that the county withdraw from the JPA, which so far has prevented the county from dismantling railroad infrastructure in order to continue development of a multi-use El Dorado Trail from Diamond Springs to the Sacramento County line. His motion never made it to a vote and he characterized it later as a “shoot-first thing.”
Deputy county counsel Paula Frantz reminded the board that “We don’t own the (rail infrastructure) in the corridor; the JPA owns it, and if we withdraw from the JPA we’ll have no control over the use of it… (However), within the scope of your agreements with the JPA, you can say ‘no train.’ That’s within our rights as the easement holder.”
Briggs has led the board in its effort over the past 18 months to extend the trail and limit rail use to approximately nine miles between Missouri Flat Road and Shingle Springs.
“Part of my frustration in the last year and a half is that we’ve had the same meeting four times,” Briggs said in a phone call Wednesday morning. “I viewed the license agreement as an end-run by the train guys,” reiterating a comment he’d made during the meeting.
“I believe the will of this board has been clearly in favor of the trail, and I’m not in favor of further cluttering use of the trail. We’ve voted four-to-one (to keep the trail as the primary use of the corridor), and yet I’m seeing more train proposals. My recommendation to withdraw from the JPA isn’t about the JPA. It’s a message to the train guys to stop with the excursion trains (issue) that are just getting in the way of the trail,” he said at that time.
County Counsel Lou Green followed on Frantz’s description of the county’s interests and further clarified the issue of the license agreement.
“If you OK the license, they’ll have the right to run a train, and you will have to take that along with whatever else you want to do,” Green explained.
Board Chairman John Knight several times reminded the audience that the topic at hand was the license agreement and not the merits of rails versus trails.
“Stick to the item. And I’ll jump on anyone who slams the other side,” Knight threatened.
Late in Tuesday’s session, Briggs made the motion to deny the license agreement. He and Supervisor Ray Nutting were outvoted by Supervisors Norma Santiago, Knight and Jack Sweeney. Later, the board unanimously passed Knight’s motion, which rejected the license agreement as written and instead directs county staff to “work with the train people on a ‘Shingle-Up’ project,” Briggs noted by phone.
That refers to the right of way between Shingle Springs and Missouri Flat which the board designated as multi-use including rail use — known generally by the trail advocates as the Shingle Plan or the Shingle Compromise.
Frantz clarified by e-mail Thursday: “The board voted to deny the license as proposed, but send the JPA a potential revision, limiting the excursion rail use within EDC to the area they had identified (e,g, the area between South Shingle and Missouri Flat).”
In a second directive also passed unanimously, “the board voted to have John Knight work with staff to explore the possibility of dissolving the JPA, rather than having the county withdraw while leaving the remainder of the JPA intact,” she explained.
When rails and trails hits the board agenda next is uncertain at this time. But it may repeat as a top story of 2012.
Short URL: http://www.mtdemocrat.com/?p=140683
Posted by Chris Daley on Jan 26 2012 Last Login: Sun Feb 12 17:55:35 2012
Filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
MTDEMOCRAT.com does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
You have spelled it out so simply. Sign of a good man.
The excursion train would at least bring in tax revenue. A bike/hiking path brings in zip & only costs the County taxpayers money. The right away is large enough for all uses, but the trails people refuse to live & let live alongside an excursion train. The “trail only” people look entirely selfish to me. (my opinion) And then there are the completely corrupt people who want to make money on land that has an attractive hiking trail & no chance of a whistlin’ train blowing through, like it did for generations & generations up until recently. Those Supervisors who are hell bent on killing the excursion train, will face one hell of a time getting re-elected. So if you’re against an excursion train and you’re running for Public Office, get ready to spend a whole lot more on your campaign than you anticipated.
Just a wild guess, campaign monies promised somewhere down in the South County? Ie: get rid of the tracks, get nice campaign fund padding?
This mind set surprises me from Ray coming from the logging industry, large rural land owner, and a bit of a history buff.
To answer your question in plain English, I guess money, and promise of political support?
It’s fun to watch how they explain their stance on the issue.
As I see it, it would make the most sense to allow the train guys the first opportunity to utilize the tracks. It’s a relatively simple methodology. The track are there. The track, the track bed, etc is there and paid for. With a small investment a rail business could be up and running.
On the other hand, to build a trail (Class 1) as you seem to insist El Dorado County needs more of, a major project would have to be undertaken. Removal of the tracks, ties, hazardous material, environmental impact reports and so on. I realize you work for corporate America, but you must comprehend these things cost money? A lot of Money.
Why don’t we do the responsible thing and give the rail guys an opportunity to make it work first?